- cross-posted to:
- usnews
- cross-posted to:
- usnews
You must log in or register to comment.
“An attorney for PJ’s Construction said the developers didn’t want to hire surveyors.”
Well there’s your problem.
The answer here should be simple… the developers pay for demolition, removal of the house, and restore the property back to the condition where they found it.
They’ve sued everyone instead…
The lady that owns the property, the people who used to own it, a bank, an insurance company, I think a person that lives on another lot, the person who sold them the other lots.
In all likelihood the lawsuits are a stall until they can declare bankruptcy and start a new company.
But they can’t just “restore” the property, it was full of mature native trees/plants and for bulldozed.
Also the reason they didn’t “need” surveyors, was lots are clearly marked via numbers on telephone poles. They just read the numbers wrong. Which is even worse.
But they can’t just “restore” the property, it was full of mature native trees/plants and for bulldozed.
Oh God…tree law…I never realized how much I missed this.
Psh, the trees are the easy part, trees (for the most part) stay where you plant them.
Good luck reintroducing the pocono swallow, or even being able to afford to fly a Bird Law specialist out from Philly to determine damages.
Seriously tho, this lady just got a $500k house and probably a 1/10th of that in damages for a lot she paid 22k for.
A house that increased her taxes tenfold and that the developers are saying she can’t have.
It also says this was discovered when they sold the house. Hopefully that sale fell through with no clear title, but someone else may think it’s theirs
According to the article I read yesterday there are squatters in the house refusing to leave
Eh.
I read an article a couple days ago
She bought it super cheap when it was an isolated lot in an undeveloped area to be used as a retreat.
Then this developer built a shit ton of house all over, even if her lot was the same, the area was drastically changed.
Like, I get it, it sucks for her.
But it would have been even worse if they didn’t build a house there.
You just decided that what you think she should do with her property is more important than what she thinks she should do with her property.
Nope.
I’m saying she bought a lot in an undeveloped area, and now there are half million dollar homes all over the place.
That lot is no longer remote.
Now she’ll likely make a bunch of money and buy a bigger plot that’s more remote and likely to stay that way for longer.
I didn’t take the time to explain every little detail, and it looks like a lot of people need them.
You don’t understand tree law. A same tree of about the same size and age must be transported and planted where the old one was. It can cost well over $20,000 per tree. They don’t get to just plant a sapling and say “20 years from now, you’re all good”.
Then it also has to survive the transplant and a fair amount don’t, so must be replaced again if they fall over or die from the move.
Tree law? Let’s say you and I go toe-to-toe on bird law and see who comes out the victor.
Biggest thing I miss from old reddit. Oh well.
Just have the Lorax settle this
They couldn’t afford surveyors but they can pay lawyers to file a half dozen fraudulent lawsuits?
I hope a judge smacks them.
Didn’t say they couldn’t afford them. They didn’t want to pay that expense
Lawyers cost a lot to win a case like this.
One lawyer to send letters to 20 people demanding they all each pay…
That doesn’t cost much, might actually work, and stalls the issue.
And leaves you enough time to close up shop, declare bankruptcy, and walk into court with Groucho glasses saying “your honor, clearly this suit is filed towards Romanes Eunt Domum. The company I run now is Romanes Eunt Domus.”
The restoration part is where everyone involved is totally screwed.
Bold move Jim, let’s see if it pays off.
There really should be a law that says a business can’t sue someone and declare bankruptcy because it looks like they’ll lose.
Until they declare bankruptcy and reorganize as JP’s Construction.
Dear dumbass,
Please remove your abandoned property.
Love,
Attorney with the easiest job ever
Surveyors: Actually a really important job because without them nobody knows where the fuck anything actually is in any precise way, nor does anyone actually know they own the land they think they do.
They also offered to “swap” her for the lot next door. F that, they should offer to buy it from her for fair market value
Is that not what they are doing by offering an identical lot next to it that cost the same?
Doesn’t sound the same, since one of them now has a house on it.
The options are restore it (identical lot next door), or a fair market value, which would be the cost of the land plus repair, or a suitable replacement. She ignored two fair trades that have plenty of precedent in courts, to achieve more damages than she should be entitled too. She definitely seems like she’s trying to get her cake and eat it here too.
You aren’t entitled to the value of the house, that’s going above and beyond damages.
Yes. How dare her object to her property being irrevocably changed without her consent. How dare she not just roll over and accept a completely different property in exchange to make it easy on them.
No two properties are the same. You can’t decide for another that your attempt at a compromise (that only benefits you) is sufficient.
Shit happens, she was given recourse and demanded far more than the damages she incurred.
How does swapping two properties benefit one? They need to pay for all the legal paperwork and everything, they aren’t coming out ahead, since the cost of the house would be the same on either property.
You seem to think the developer benefits here? Even though it’ll costs thousands of dollars in legal fees to process everything? And in the end all they have is a lot with a house, that they would have still had regardless? Where is the benefit to the developer?
And yes, when it comes track homes every property is more or less the exact same, that’s the entire point of them. Theres actually very few cases where lots have any significant difference to them, except for custom communities that are a rarity anywhere.
Shit like this does not happen and when it does the person who fucked up needs to be taught the reason this is rare. In this case the developer needs to be held accountable, they won’t because they’ll file bankruptcy and open a new llc the following week though
The benefit to the developer is being able to be careless, make an expensive mistake, and get off for almost nothing
Okay let’s go with your thing. So developer can now, by your logic, pick any property they want and just build there without the consent of the owner, as long as they later find a similar enough lot to switch with the owner later? And the owner just has to agree to it because it’s still a fair trade?
I don’t think the developer comes out ahead… but I do think that the punishment on them should be punitive to the point of causing them to never do it again. Swapping out a fully treed lot (that the owner wanted) with a flat wasteland with a house on it could inequitable, depending on what you value. If they can give her one the same size as hers, fully wooded, that might matter.
Or just give the property the owner the house for free in exchange for not suing and cut their losses. Would probably be cheaper in the long run, especially counting legal fees.
She doesn’t want the house because it balloons the taxes on the property from a few hundred to thousands per year
First: she has a right to be made whole and it’s not her concern what the people who wronged her have to go through to do that.
Second: she never wanted a house. She had a special vision for the space, a space that has now been damaged.
Third: squatters have rights and she may not be able to evict them. Their rights may take precedence over hers here.
Not disagreeing with any of this but it should be clear to this lady her vision was screwed the moment a developer built a bunch of cookie cutter houses all over that area. A meditation center doesn’t really work in that area any longer.
The issue with the taxes, the lawsuit, and the squatters is exactly why I would have just taken the offer to trade properties, she has an enormous headache on her hands and bailed on the easy way out of it.
Squatters seldom have the “rights” to just take property as easily as the internet often seems to think they have. It very often takes years to assume those rights plus paying the taxes on it. And if it were so easy to do that it became such a common problem, it wouldn’t be as big a meme as it currently is.
My question is: “Just how little are you paying attention to your personal property that you unaware of a many month’s long building process taking place on your property?” Or is the property owner that stupid and has her ass that far up her own head?
I mean, I own several hundred acres of property, (farm land and forest), and a good chunk of it is 300 miles away. I KNOW what happens on that property. If someone tried to build anything on it without my knowledge or consent, I would know within a week of the start of the building and real hard pointed questions would be asked of the fools doing the building.
She doesn’t reside in the state, and the state is Hawaii (an island). We can assume she also has no social connections there, at least none near the property. Do you expect her to be telepathic?
Her daughter lives there and was the one to recommend the property. That said I don’t think you lose your rights by not checking your stuff regularly. This developer could have had that house up in a matter of months, Does not really need to be a long time.
Not telepathic, but you can hire companies to watch over your investment. And if you can afford real estate in Hawaii and live elsewhere, you can afford to hire such a company.
You can. But should you be expected to? Lol. It’s an empty lot in a residential neighborhood. I think it’s fair to NOT expect people to be putting unauthorized structures on it.
Fair or not, it happened and the actual property owner does have an obligation to know what happens on the property she owns - absent or not. So she bears some responsibility for what happened. Think about a small child falling into an abandoned well you didn’t know was there. As the owner of the property, you are expected to know of it’s presence and you are accountable for what happens with it. It’s a part of the joys of owning property.
So if you end up owning property, understand when that if that day comes, that there are more obligations to ownership than simply making loan payments and paying your taxes.
Wouldn’t the property owner already own the house?
Or they do whatever the property owner wants because it’s their property. They don’t get to decide shit.
Why don’t they just pick up the house, and put it over there?
Seriously, I’ve seen houses being moved on trucks before, would it be faster and cheaper to do that?
It looks like slab on grade construction, there’s no moving those. The houses that can be moved are up on posts or over a basement.
The land has permanent damage and no trees genius.
Which is why she was offered the identical lot next door that still has all of that?
So, protip for future developers: is there a nicer lot next to yours that you want? Build a house on it and go “whoopsie” and offer tradesies
It has all the original trees from her lot? It has the same gradient, adjacent gradients and stone? There’s tons of differences between any two lands and equivalency would be up to the injured party -which they denied. Any judgement would be to make the injured whole or reach an agreement. Stamping your feet like the developer has any defensibility in their negligence is laughable.
You also can’t look at this like a winning lottery ticket where you’ll be flush with cash for the rest of your life because of it.
Taking this to trial could wind up with the woman only getting her $22k back and missing out on the other identical property or keeping her same property with a free $500k house on it. The developers royally fucked up here but it’s not like they maliciously clear-cut her land and built a house on it which would be something that should come with a hefty penalty.
I think the court is just going to try to make her ‘whole’ which comes with the risk of missing out on a much better pre-trial settlement since her actual investment in the property was only $22k. This is not too different than you accidently getting into a fender bender at low speed and the other party suing you for millions of dollars due to ‘pain and suffering.’ The court isn’t going to reward someone for being greedy.
Where did you see that it was identical? I only read that it was a lot next door.
The Title Company has to be sweating bullets right now. It’s their whole job to prevent problems like this.
Yeah, they admit in the video that the developers didn’t hire a surveyor. The developers are completely fucked here, and I think they know it.
If they had hired a title company, the company would have hired surveyors, so it’s pretty much a for sure thing they didn’t hire a title company. Developers usually only do that at closing when they sell the property.
I’m confused by why the landowner is being sued here.
Because it’s the US of A. It’s hard to win lawyers fees so why not?
Either the hail mary, being incredibly stupid, or possibly some form of insurance requirement.
Based on previously presented evidence option two seems likely.
They are suing everyone: the county, the contractors, the current owner, the kids of the dead previous owner. They are claiming everyone but them is being unreasonable and hoping a judge gives them some sympathy. They know they fucked up and are just hoping that either at least one of the people they sued caves or the judge is an idiot/easy to buy off.
This is common because our legal system is fucked up. Standard practice is to sue everyone remotely involved and let the judge throw it out as they see fit. Of course, the people tangently involved now need to spend money and effort making sure it gets thrown out.
They’re not going to get a judgment against her. Only question is how to make her whole at this point, and if trees were knocked down. That would require the cost of getting a comparable tree somewhere and putting it into the same spot with a reasonable chance to survive. You can imagine that gets quite expensive. In some states, it’s then treble damages, but I can’t find anything specific about Hawaii there. Possibly it doesn’t, since it doesn’t have the same forestry history that other states do.
They want a judge to force her into a settlement that allows the developer to own the land and house.
I’m betting they’re trying to get a judge to force her to take the house as payment so that everyone can walk away.
This crap happens (not that at it should and you’re correct). I know someone in construction. They leaned a property that the title company just… didn’t see the lien? Property was sold, The lien wasn’t bonded off or anything either.
It got resolved but man, that would have been a mess. I think at that point the new homeowner is on the hook, and would need to get their due by going after the title company?
Yep, I have a good friend that ran into this issue on his home he bought 20 years ago. After 5 years of living in the home and making payments on it, it was finally discovered that there was no clear title to the property going back 60 years…
It took another 2 years to clean it all up, but it required the township, county, and a state agency to get involved to make a couple of problems “just go away”.
Thats insane. And at that point they were there for 7 years. Most people stay in there house longer, but any million things could have made them want to move in that window. Sick family member, job, whatever, and they would have been stuck.
It wasn’t as bad as it sounds. No one was really contesting his ownership - least of all the bank. But a governmental paperwork error had been made a long time ago and no one caught the error until after he bought the property. But it took a long time to fix it due to different levels of government that needed to fix the original error.
My friend still lives there today and I doubt he will ever move out.
Title insurance.
If you are buying property, you can get insurance against this exact issue. If the title is found to be incorrect or a lien is on the property then the insurance company has to deal with it.
That makes sense, I’d hope title insurance folks are easy to work with because that has to be one of those fields where like 99% of people never have a claim against it… at least a hope so lol.
It’s hilarious u think these shady developers hired a title company 🤣🤣🤣
If that house had a mortgage then the lending bank almost certainly required the use of one. If it had a construction loan it too probably required a title search and certification.
I could be wrong, but I thought you couldn’t get a mortgage for a house that isn’t already in a livable condition. That would have come after the thing was completed.
It may not be the same in the US, but in the UK, you can mortgage a new build project.
The company releases money in stages as the build progresses, normally.
In the US this could be done with a short term variable loan called a construction loan that releases money in stages as the build progresses. Once finished if it’s not being paid off it would be refinanced into a more traditional mortgage. Mortgages are often pretty different in the US vs UK, most US mortgages are for fixed rates for 30 year terms whereas most UK mortgages are fixed for a much shorter period and then go to variable rates. So you’d be hard pressed to get a bank to agree to a fixed rate 30 year mortgage for a house that doesn’t exist yet.
Developers don’t mortgage individual houses, they were still trying to sell the house to someone according to the video, and offered to sell it to her at a discount.
Again, all in the video with all the answers :)
The video doesn’t appear if you default to reader view.
Montgomery Burns Slant
DrillingHousing Company?
An attorney for PJ’s Construction said the developers didn’t want to hire surveyors.
they would have had a title company when they bought the land. Building a house on a plot they didn’t own after that doesn’t involve a title company. It was surveyors they apparently cheaped out on.
The Title Company did their job. They were the ones that caught the error.
Reynold’s attorney said they offered to swap her their lot right next door or sell her the house at a discount. But she has refused both offers. “It would set a dangerous precedent if you could go onto someone else’s land, build anything you want, and then sue that individual for the value of it,” DiPasquale said.
Good for her.
I’d also tell them to fuck off. The only reasonable option would be giving her the house (which she is now paying taxes on and requires work to make it usable because of the shit) or to bulldoze the thing (or uproot the house and move it; whatever gets it off the property) and get the lot back to its prior state.
Keaau Development Partnership sued PJ’s Construction, the architect, the prior property owner’s family, and the county, which approved the permits.
They also sued Reynolds.
The developer knows they fucked up and are hoping one of the people they are suing is poor enough or dumb enough to cave so they can recoup some of the massive legal cost they are looking at. Also suing the kids of a dead person is a little fucked up. Like “Hey sorry that your dad died but we can’t sue him so we’ll sue you instead.”
The only reasonable option would be giving her the house
No need. The house is already hers if the laws over there work as they do where I live. Anything somebody else builds on your land becomes your ownership automatically. The developer knows this and tries to bully and cajole her into getting his money back or at least cut some of the losses.
There’s a quote from the realator involved to the effect of “we need to resolve this”. Notice the language technically is just saying we’ll work this out, but it’s worded with the implication that it’s on her to make good. Which, no, it isn’t.
Her correct response would be “my lawyer will be in touch”, and looks like she did that. I don’t know if this is going to get her into Fuck You Money or not, but either way, she seems to be smart enough to let her lawyer do the talking.
It’s probably similar in Hawai’i but don’t underestimate the power of money to fuck over the little guy.
The still vacant three-bedroom, two-bath house on a 1-acre lot in Puna’s Hawaiian Paradise Park is worth about $500,000. But it could cost a lot of people more than that as they head to court to sort it out.
Wow. A house is cheaper in Hawaii than it is in SoCal?
The housemate of my mother just sold her mother’s house in Orange County. 2 bedroom and 1 bath, so smaller, for over $1 million.
Well, sure, if you don’t own the land it’s built on. :)
Hawaii makes up for in fuel costs, power costs, food costs, etc etc.
Unless you are a native Hawaiian, you can only lease the land for 100 years. Further, the cost of living in HI is way way higher than SoCal because everything has to be imported.
Source: ex-Navy who lived there and used to crash open houses in diamond head for snacks when he was poor.
Unless you are a native Hawaiian, you can only lease the land for 100 years.
That doesn’t sound right. IIRC, one of the biggest reasons why Guam and the Marianas don’t want to become states is that “land ownership only for natives” rules aren’t allowed under statehood (for the same reason segregating against black people isn’t allowed anymore, even though the circumstances aren’t the same), but that ship has long since sailed for Hawaii.
Had to go back and look it up. The answer is it just depends. Some land is owned by the State of HI, in which non natives can own it where other land is owned by the Natives through the Monarchy of HI and can only be leased:
https://www.hawaiistar.com/can-non-hawaiians-own-land-in-hawaii/
Puna is a rural area, not comparable to Orange County.
Did you look up paradise park on maps? It’s not close to any big city. Look further out from cities in California and you’ll see similar prices, but of course you won’t be as close to the ocean, but I guess in Hawaii you’re always close to the ocean.
It’s in one of the most gorgeous and desirable parts of the nation, a straight shot to the ocean (not all of Big Island is coastal!), and a short drive from beautiful Pāhoa.
it is extremely beautiful! but realistically, most people want to live near amenities.
If my wife’s medical needs weren’t a major concern, I’d live there.
Yes, but it also isn’t near any high paying jobs.
If only there were some way to work remotely.
If only companies who have those high paying jobs allowed working remotely without being forced to by some cataclysmic event.
It’s far from the most desirable part of the state. Look at prices in other areas, like Honolulu or Kaneohe.
There are very few high paying jobs in Hawaii, and everything else costs twice as much. Even $500,000 is more than most locals can afford. Also, this isn’t beach property.
That’s the physical structure, not the land.
The fuck are they even suing Reynolds for? They fucked up; why does she have to pay for their fuck up?
They’re just suing everyone and hoping some of it sticks.
Yup. It’s a pretty classic legal move. They are obligated to do their due diligence for their client, and that sometimes means lawsuits that they know they won’t win.
Reynold’s attorney said they offered to swap her their lot right next door or sell her the house at a discount.
But she has refused both offers.
“It would set a dangerous precedent if you could go onto someone else’s land, build anything you want, and then sue that individual for the value of it,” DiPasquale said.
Good call.
Pay up capitalist fucks
Imagine thinking she’s gonna get her land back IN AMERICA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
deleted by creator
Lol? She literally will. You don’t understand America clearly
You think the company has money and says lol no never
But you don’t understand the lawyer who wants that fuckin money. The company made the mistake, they’re at fault there is no more discussion on it. Now it is up to the lawyer to milk it for all that it is worth.
That’s the capitalism in there baby.
Sucks having to pay a lawyer to write up the dismissal motion, but it’s not like you’re getting anywhere in court with someone you have no fucking contract with.
She’d have hired a lawyer for the “damages” on her “mediation retreat” anyway.
Edit: I’d imagine Hawaiian locals don’t have much sympathy for this absent California landlady complaining about property taxes and squatters btw
For real. Lady was gone for so long she didn’t notice a whole house was built? Property is theft.
Yeah, theft… It was sitting there empty for the last million years until she bought it recently. But since she didn’t immediately build on it then it is her that is stealing?
Google “property is theft”
I’m surprised you’re not even curious lol, it’s a very well known phrase with a lot of discussion and thought behind it
Not surprised but Steve Lehto did a video on this.
https://piped.video/watch?v=B1_A_3hKI-g
If anyone wants a practiceing attorney’s take.
$500k? Where I live that would be a cardboard box
That’s just the house, not the land. That’s also a very rural area of a rural island. There are very few high paying jobs on that island, and even fewer in that area. Everything else on the islands costs twice as much as you pay.
Found the hyperbole
You’re right, where I live that wouldn’t even buy the land, let alone a box
münchner detektiert
I will preface this with this warning because I know in advance this will be a hot take
I think she’s being unreasonable. No if ands or buts, I agree with the company that is suing her, this does not mean that I agree that they should have built the house in the first place; because it was not their property. However, they have tried multiple times to reach a resolution with her that would help both sides, she has turned down every offer so far stating she didn’t want the house there in the first place.
This is a reasonable response, however let’s go over what she’s turned down so far:
-
she has turned down an offer of another plot of land, which was offered free of charge and still in the same area that her other house was which she has turned down because the coordinates are against her zodiac signs.
-
They have offered to sell her the house at a discounted value, what she is also turned down not because she doesn’t think the house shows value, but because “It would set a dangerous precedent if you could go onto someone else’s land, build anything you want, and then sue that individual for the value of it"
This would be 100% understandable if it weren’t for the fact that it is very clear that this was not their intention and also not what they are doing, they are suing the discounted value of it because they know they fucked up.
I agree with the company accusation, she is trying to take advantage of what was a mistake, if she truly felt the way that she feels she would bulldoze the lot or be trying to work with the company to have them pay for bulldozed costs, neither of which have been publically stated(not that the company would agree with bulldozing it). She wants to take advantage of this mistake and get a free 500,000 house out of it. I will be interested how this plays out in court, I’m not a lawyer but I hard disagree with this case being an open shut case like the practicing attorney video posted in another comment.
edit: to save people asking me for the eighth time the same question, yes I understand she has no obligation to propose a solution, but the fact that she has not done so also indicates towards the intent.
Nope she has every right. Trying to make things right doesn’t make things right, don’t fuck up and if you do especially as a company pay the fuck up.
I also dislike that her not wanting a property against her zodiac sign is supposed to suggest craziness. If someone said they didn’t want a house near a cemetery or pork factory for religious reasons we don’t question it, if anything we understand that. Let her have that space too all religions are goofy as fuck.
The zodiac sign thing sounds like an attempt at making her sound crazy. The company should have done better due diligence on such an important thing.
Haaaaa. It is crazy.
Now she has the right to say no for absolutely no reason and I support that but saying no based on astrology is pretty fucking crazy.
why
It doesn’t matter why she wants what she wants. It only really matters what she wants.
You’re completely right, I just wish I didn’t know the reason because I can’t respect it
Literally all religions though and you’re gonna respect some? Who is the real dummy?
And if you shoot back saying you believe in nothing you hold no proof and could be just as wrong as every religion. So why act so arrogant and be so judgemental it is literally actually stupid
‘Literally actually’
Thanks for that.
Exactly come pick at grammar that’s all you can do baby
I’m not sure if you’re saying that I’m suggesting that it’s crazy or if you’re just stating it so I’m responding, I’m not saying that it’s crazy one way or the other I’m just stating what she gave as the reason for it
I think we can both agree that the valid outcome of this will be that the property will be bulldozed but the fact that she hasn’t suggested is herself suggest that she might want the house there she just doesn’t want to pay for it.
She has no obligation to suggest anything here. And the valid outcome is that they rebulldoze (since they did that when building) de-landscape and then relocate and replant any and all plants. She already has the house, it is crazy to me you can have a take so hot and yet so very wrong.
How do you know she hasn’t said that is what she wants? For all we know, the company doesn’t want to do that because it will cost them more money.
The development company is suing everybody, including the children of the dead guy who sold her the land, and she’s the unreasonable party?
I’m not saying that she’s the only unreasonable party and the company itself is definitely being unreasonable as well, I just definitely don’t think she’s helping the matter at all. Especially since this likely will be brought up in the hearing
I think her position is eminently reasonable: You (the development company) have damaged my land, deprived me of the use of it by putting a house in my way, created squatter problems for me, and stuck me with a huge tax bill. Fix it.
If she doesn’t want the house on that property, that is her right. If she doesn’t want the adjacent property, that is also her right.
The “she just wants a payday” excuse is an old one, and it’s a cover for companies to do bad things and get away with it. The only recourse our legal system gives is often monetary. Take that away with “they just want a payday” and now there is no recourse at all.
Still wondering on what she is doing here that could be construed as unreasonable? Was it that she did not go along with what ever the company offered? Was it that she hired a lawyer? Was it when she was shocked and sicked someone did this to her?
Buddy, get off the internet. Your opinion makes no sense.
I think you’re approaching it a bit wrong. Even though it was a mistake, her property was altered without her permission. It was altered in a way that potentially made it more valuable, potentially could cause some headaches, etc. The cost of the materials is now a sunk cost for the builder, whether or not they can convince her to give them money.
So with that as the starting point, I think it is unreasonable to ask her to give any concessions. That is, she should not be forced to pay anything, and she should not be expected to give us her plot of land for a different one. The only outcomes the builder can reasonably expect are that they walk away losing the building costs, or that they walk away losing the building costs AND the demolition/restoration costs. They are better off if she wants a free house versus getting her clear land back.
Now, if she wanted to offer the builders some amount of money, that would be very gracious of her. I’m going to take a wild guess that a random sloppy real estate developer that sues others for their own mistakes isn’t seen as the most worthy of a gift of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.
However, they have tried multiple times to reach a resolution with her that would help both sides, she has turned down every offer so far stating she didn’t want the house there in the first place.
She’s not under any obligation to do so.
This was a business transaction, that was handled poorly. The onus is on the company selling the product.
Don’t purchase victim blame.
I’m not purchasing victim blame I’m stating that they’ve acknowledged they fucked up they’ve tried to fix it she has not stated she wants it bulldozed nor has she accepted any of the Alternatives that they did.
Being as she was informed of this mistake last year, she has had ample time to either propose a solution on her end or accept a solution on their end she has done neither. Which is why I led to my conclusion that she’s trying to get a $500,000 house for no cost
They have sued her because she’s not being cooperative in any form, and then when she remained being non-cooperative they sued everyone else involved to make it so the legal system decides if she’s being unreasonable or not
Being as she was informed of this mistake last year, she has had ample time to either propose a solution on her end or accept a solution on their end she has done neither.
You do understand that she has no obligation to do so, right?
Could you literally respond to that question in a yes or no manner.
yes.
Being as she was informed of this mistake last year, she has had ample time to either propose a solution on her end or accept a solution on their end she has done neither.
You do understand that she has no obligation to do so, right?
Could you literally respond to that question in a yes or no manner.
yes.
Thank you for responding, specifically and concisely.
Your ‘purchase victim blaming’ because you keep putting (per your comments to various people in this thread) the onus on her to resolve the situation, when she has no obligation to do so, and when it’s the seller/developer that has the onus.
The effort should be on them, and it should be whole and complete, and not substandard/lesser.
Sorry, I know I’m not amazing at explaining things.
I’ll try rephrasing as a question. What should the company at this point of time do?
The company incorrectly built a house on the wrong property plot, they realize their mistake far too late in the process due to someone’s negilance along the process whether it’s the development company or the construction company maybe even both.
They have reached out to the person whose life they fucked up basically because they now have more in taxes and also now have to deal with squatters and vandalism on the house that they have stated they don’t want.
The landowner has refused to talk it out with the company at all regarding any type of suggestions it’s just been a straight no to any proposal(which as stated multiple times already they were not obligated to do I understand this) while also not bringing anything new to the table including anything to do with restoration or bulldozing(again not obligated)
Aside from bringing into the legal system what can that company do?
I said before I think the right thing to do is completely bulldoze the lot to allow for the landowner to build what they want on it, but I find it very very weird that this is not been proposed by the party that would be most likely beneficial from this transaction
Sorry, I know I’m not amazing at explaining things.
Honestly, to me you’re crystal clear, its just people, including myself, are pushing back for the reasons I’ve stated before, and again below.
but I find it very very weird that this is not been proposed by the party that would be most likely beneficial from this transaction
You just did it again. You are purchase victim blaming.
Its not her job to propose anything, its the company/developers. She doesn’t have to propose/negotiate ANYTHING, they have to offer a recompense that she is satisified with and makes her whole. The onus is on the company.
They have reached out to the person whose life they fucked up basically because they now have more in taxes and also now have to deal with squatters and vandalism on the house that they have stated they don’t want.
They in fact did not reach out at all. The property owner found out from the realtor who sold the house and not even in a we fucked up way. From the article above:
She was unaware of the construction until she got a call last year from a real estate broker who had learned of the mistake.
“He told me, ‘I just sold the house, and it happens to be on your property. So, we need to resolve this,’”
You are fine atgetting across your view, the issue people are having is that your views are really fucking stupid.
I’ll try rephrasing as a question. What should the company at this point of time do?
If she wants the house removed and her land restored, then that is what the company should do.
she remained being non-cooperative
No shit, and she has zero obligation or responsibility to. Keep in mind one of the “alternatives” was that she bought the house they illegally built on her land for a discount…
Yeah, this is just straight up a scam, she has no obligation to buy their fucking illegal scam house. House belongs to her, in my opinion, if she wants it, and if she doesn’t, it’s on company dime to bulldoze the entire thing, clean the lot, reseed it, and pay back the tax burden they forced.
Don’t forget the possibility of treble damages. I am honestly shocked that anyone can look at this and side with the developer.
So then if they are being unreasonable her suggestion should be that they pay for the bulldoze correct? unless I missed it somewhere I have not seen it posted she suggested this at all.
Once again, she is under no obligation to suggest anything. The developers here did not make an oopsie this is full blown criminal and they are lucky that the law does not treat companies the same as individuals. If you or I did anything like this (trespassing, conversion, destruction of property, extortion, fraud etc.) we would not be free to carry on.
like stated prior, while she is under no obligation to suggest anything, the fact that she did not at all indicates her intention
And her intention has nothing to do with anything in this case, no ones intentions here do. This is sadly not a criminal matter (it should have been) so other then modifying damages intent has no real bearing here.
What I don’t get is what’s with you suggesting that her wanting the house for herself is a somewhat morally wrong thing. It’s her house. Idiots build it on her land; tough luck shitheads, it’s hers now.
She doesn’t want the house, she has no obligation to pay for it or be given an adjacent lot. She is the one that should be sueing instead. She has every right to be made whole at the developers expense.
What I mean by that, is that since she doesn’t want the house the developer is on the hook to demolish it and restore the land to its former condition.
Taking then adjacent land may not even be equitable. It could be less desirable, more difficult to build on, have different drainage, inaccessible without going through an easement. Any number of things.
The developers should also be in the hook for the increased property taxes.
By this logic, if a person is driving and looking at their phone, runs a red light and causes an accident, they shouldn’t be held responsible if they don’t give the person reasonable compensation. It wasn’t there intent to cause an accident, it was a mistake. Asking for the property she paid for in the condition she bought it is reasonable.
You are also leaving out the part where she is now paying 10x if not more for property taxes on a house she never wanted and it sounds like the house is damaged due to squatters, something that the developer should have made sure wouldn’t happen. That house probably isn’t worth what they are offering it to her.
Also, you have no idea what she wants from a 3 minute video. All we know is what the developer offered. She may have asked for the house to be demolished and they said no because it would cost them more money to do so.
By this logic, if a person is driving and looking at their phone, runs a red light and causes an accident, they shouldn’t be held responsible if they don’t give the person reasonable compensation. It wasn’t there intent to cause an accident, it was a mistake. Asking for the property she paid for in the condition she bought it is reasonable.
They would be held responsible, just like the company would be held responsible regardless of the outcome here. If she had sued the company she would win that full force. But the lawsuit isn’t for whether the company is at fault or not, the lawsuit is whether she is trying to exploit their mistake for her own personal gain. This article never talks about it but, other articles have the response from PJ Constructions Attorney
“My client believes she’s trying to exploit PJ Construction’s mistake in order to get money from my client and the other parties,” Olson told The Associated Press Wednesday of her rejecting an offer for an identical lot.
Also, you have no idea what she wants from a 3 minute video. All we know is what the developer offered. She may have asked for the house to be demolished and they said no because it would cost them more money to do so.
I have been reading into it because I have a vested curiosity on it, so I pardon if information is given that isn’t in that article. I agree that not all information is on the table, she might have mentioned it and it was not provided in any of the articles I read related to this for some reason.
The fact that they sued everyone involved and not involved with this instead of offering to remove the house first tells me they probably wouldn’t accept that if she asked. This is a small tactic as others have said.
If she wants the house removed, her land restored and some money to cover her costs that is perfectly in her right. If the company offers her options A, B, and C she is under no obligation to accept them.
I’ll not even try to respond to everything you just said, but no; she’s not in the wrong here. It’s get plot. She doesn’t want any other plot only because someone else messed up and built something on her property.
She’s should not be expected to comply and move to other land only because the developer doesn’t want to face the consequences of their mistakes. What should be done is get the developer take the house down and built it in the right property.
edit: to save people asking me for the eighth time the same question, yes I understand she has no obligation to propose a solution, but the fact that she has not done so also indicates towards the intent.
Intent to do what? Are you trying to suggest she had a hand in this fuck up? Like she swapped signs to the lots loony toons style?
Please tell me what actions she took that caused this incident. It does not matter what the other parties want or think is reasonable, It does not matter that they think she is taking advantage, as they would have to prove she did something or failed to do something to instigate this issue (good luck with that).
Also as pointed out their intention does not even come into play here, neglect in this matter will have the same ruling.
-
